this is a really interesting debate. Right now, Democrats are advocating to send $26 billion to insurance companies so that you subsidize plans--silver-level plans--which have a $6,000 deductible. I have asked people who have asked me about this: Do you have $6,000 in your bank account to spend on healthcare before the insurance actually kicks in? Not one has yet raised his hand. I think some of those advocating for this among Democrats just don't realize the financial situation American families are in when we ask them to pay $6,000 before the insurance kicks in--$6,000 beyond the premium that they are paying for their health insurance. So people-- patients--are going to see their doctors, and they can't afford the deductible. When I was practicing, I would say to my patients: What about this procedure? this test? this medicine? Doctor, I am in my deductible. I cannot afford that. So, to have a $6,000 deductible is, for many, the same as having no insurance at all. By the way, it goes without saying, under your traditional medical insurance plan, you don't get eyeglasses, and you don't get your teeth cleaned. Why not, instead of sending 100 percent of the money to the insurance company, of which they take 20 percent for profit and overhead, we send 100 percent to the patient. Then she can spend it on the services that she knows she needs.
On the recordDecember 9, 2025
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of high deductibles in health insurance during a debate.
Share
More from Bill Cassidy
Aug 14, 2026
I am concerned that IAM Union member dues are financing efforts to change U.S. policy related to the Cuban regime, a State Sponsor of Terror, instead of supporting American workers’ priorities.
Aug 17, 2026
One of the most meaningful ways to strengthen a person’s future, to support their family, and uplift their community, is by taking the skills that you know you have, and finding a job in which you can meaningfully use those skills,"
Aug 20, 2026
Additionally, Dr. Overton’s active role in last week’s nonsensical vaccine executive order calls into question her commitment to standing up for sound science and protecting children’s health.





